To disagree with 3/4 year old children having more childcare paid for

[ReallyTired]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24199711

I feel the goverment should pay for education rather than childcare. 15 hours a week is enough to meet a child's educational needs for pre school. At a time of austerity, I feel there are bigger spending priorities. (Providing enough school places for children who are of complusory school age!)

If you choose to have chidlren then you should pay to look after them. I feel that labour's set of proposals are totally unaffordable and making the "banks" pay will damage the UK financial sector long term.

All these election bribes do not help the UK in the long term.

"Are doing nothing and have no prospects"- oh get over yourself.

I don't stop.

I have had those years with my dc and for me nothing was worth more.It has benefited my children and family.

Re prospects I didn't want to be a head teacher thanks and do have a brain.

I was talking about in my area, and myself. I owe everything to childcare subsidies, and will be greatful for the rest of my life. I wouldnt of had that if I became a mum pre 2001. If you dont like it, dont use it

Hear hear to lowering the cost of living. Being totally honest though, you will still have families where both parents choose to work, for all sorts of reasons. For DH and me, it's really a case of us both feeling that we are equally skilled in the workplace and at home... So we've never gone for the model where one of us does all the earning and the other does all things domestic. And so this perceived 'inequality' will remain, because the SAHP who seem less secure with their choice, will be up in arms that the dual earners are getting something that they aren't. I am not for a moment including all SAHP in that: most are happy with their choice and are doing it because its what they want to do. But there is a minority who seem s l

Posted too soon
A minority who seem so resentful of dual earners

I'm a single mum who couldn't afford to work. I would be able to start paying taxes again and have a small amount of adult socialisation if this came in. Sorry, but unless you are in my position you might not realise how freeing this is and what an impact (positively) this will have on my life.

As long as the parents work I fully agree with this

It is also intended to raise the wages of poorly paid early years workers

The point of sacrificing the pursuit of a career is to give your ultimate best shot at contributing something great to the future: your children.

Do you go through pregnancy and child birth for somebody else to raise your children?

If your so hung up on the idea of a long and fruitful career without interruption, are kids the right way to go?

It can be a man or woman, but part of the job of a parent, is to be selfless.

If your not making money because child care is too expensive, doesn't it make sense to just be with your child?

Any stay at home parent is no 'elf', but a contribution to the future... not to the economy, but to society.

If going out to work and making money brings more satisfaction than staying home and raising your children, then I'd see how important this 'free' childcare is. But ultimately, for a better society, money should be spent elsewhere.

Ah, we've finally got to 'someone else raising your children'- BINGO!!

(And of course, funny how the SAHM whose poor husband is working god knows how many hours to facilitate her choice is never included in that judgement)

Spacecloud - My mum always worked and taught me to be selfless she didnt just care about her own family, but worked in a job helping lots of people and her community. For that she was my hero and I have gone on to do the same. I expect extending the help will help so many more families like mine, and thats a great thing.

I am on the fence on this one. I agree in principle there are other more pressing things. I can also see the argument that it may enable people to work more and therefore pay more taxes. However, I am not sure practical it will be.

My son's nursery is attached to the school and runs 2 3-hour sessions per day so enabling 60 children in total to attend. If each session was increased to 5 hours, and given there is no more physical space, then they would only be able to run 1 session for 30 children a day and therefore take half the number of children.

Actually it looks to me as if some wp are resentful of sahp.

The only resentment I feel is for money being wasted on those already getting help,many of whom are more than capable of paying for child care and planning ahead coupled with resentment over the lack of help for families who want a sahp for the good of their children and family well being.

And in response to space: some parents don't find that making money brings them more satisfaction than being at home with their children. What they do find is that they want to combine the very lovely role of parenting with working outside the home too. And - let this blow your tiny mind- that in doing this, their children are just as happy and secure as they would be if one parent didn't work.
And tbh therein lies the crux of the issue: it seems there is a minority who can only tolerate other women working if they can try to convince themselves that the children must be suffering in some way. Nice

Jasminerose, my mother, as a single parent, did the same. She worked nights to be with us in the day, and avoid care.

And janey, I don't think any relationship so inconsiderate would be beneficial to any child. Obviously, such an arrangement must be mutual.

I don't think it's wrong to work and have a family. I just think its absurd that people feel they shouldn't have to make sacrifices to raise children.

I also feel sad that women feel a career is the only way to be somebody, and to feel equal.

We are equal, we know that by now. It doesn't mean we have to pee standing up and work all hours to feel equal.

Spacecloud

I too don't understand why people who don't make any money i.e lose the equivalent of a wage don't just become a sahp.
I can see why some feel it important to keep their career going but this is choice and not necessity and imo not fair to ask for subsidy.
If it is needed to pay bills and no family to provide childcare then it should be subsidised by means testing/ your existing out goings rather than universal.

Isn't the cost of living subsidised with wftc and the like though?

Thank you janey for blowing my tiny mind, I feel truly liberated.

Next time I'm working in the other room. I won't feel so guilty about not playing mr wolf.

I think they should create jobs, to be honest.

Why spend money on childcare when there are not enough jobs to go to, while your child is in nursery...

Spacecloud - Nursery is brilliant though and holiday club. I have some of the best memories from there, and it helped me be really confident and outgoing as I grew up. My parents could afford it, and my kids would of missed out if it wasnt for the governments help.

Weird idea to think a woman might feel she needs a career to feel equal.
Why is it so hard for some people to get their head round the fact that many women want a career because they have skills and qualities which lend themselves to it, and because it adds another dimension to their life? And equally; that many men have skills and qualities which enable them to look after children, cook, clean and run a home? Because there are two sides to this and the fathers side seems to be largely forgotten. All these SAHM who keep saying how they can't possibly work because their husband's career is so full-on and time consuming that she has to practically run everything else single handed... Well, clearly it's a revelation to some, but not all men are like that. Some want more equal roles: they enjoy spending time with their children and running the home too.

They are doing that anyway Quintessential as they are promising all young people jobs too.

janey.

I think the only resentment of dual income families comes from the attitude that they should receive more subsidised child care, when it is their responsibility to pay for their own.
It seems ok in any other area of life for people to say "If you can't afford them, don't have kids". It has been said so many times about people on benefit, including WTC/CTC/CB, so why is it different for childcare?
Encouraging dual income will be detrimental to those choosing to be a sahp because as I said up thread, the comments will be along the lines of lazy sahps, no excuse not to work when child care is free.
Finally, many people think that sending dc to nursery/childcare is having somebody else raise them. This is one of the reasons why people choose to be a sahp, it is how they feel. I am one of these people, its how I feel. Its up to others how they feel, its not something you can argue about.

No it isn't Madame. When the average house price in the UK now stands at 250k, I don't see how the cost of living is subsidised by WFTC. People claiming this would not be in a position to buy a house at all. Families earning between 30 and 60k cannot buy houses any more. I read this in the Independent the other day by the way. We earn between 50 and 60 and cannot buy a house. The cost of living is definitely not subsidised, when the bulk of most people's earnings go on rent and mortgage. It is wrong to try and subsidise the cost of living anyway, it just increases the price by however much the government are chucking at it. This policy will cause nursery prices to increase for the same reason. What is wrong with people being paid a living wage and living costs being reduced commensurately to reflect this?

Ah well, the nursery clearly did a fabulous job of raising my children then. They are very normal, happy successful teenagers.

OP - well, it will benefit some people wont it? Especially parents (mothers mainly) who 'd be able to go to/gain more work, not having to fit around 15 hours weekly. Is there something wrong with that? These horrible goady oh why should anyone else get it good threads get on my last nerve. Some people no matter what, will complain about anything that appears to benefit the working classes. They remind me of curtain-twitchers peering out there to see who has what, then begrudging them for any & everything as if somehow that will improve their own lives.

All this 'free' childcare sounds great in theory. But where is this money going to come from. Has Labour costed this out. I expect not.